وَأَمَّا الْجِدَارُ فَكَانَ لِغُلَامَيْنِ يَتِيمَيْنِ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ وَكَانَ تَحْتَهُ كَنْزٌ لَهُمَا وَكَانَ أَبُوهُمَا صَالِحًا فَأَرَادَ رَبُّكَ أَنْ يَبْلُغَا أَشُدَّهُمَا وَيَسْتَخْرِجَا كَنْزَهُمَا رَحْمَةً مِنْ رَبِّكَ وَمَا فَعَلْتُهُ عَنْ أَمْرِي ذَلِكَ تَأْوِيلُ مَا لَمْ تَسْطِعْ عَلَيْهِ صَبْرًا ﴿۸۲﴾ وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنْ ذِي الْقَرْنَيْنِ قُلْ سَأَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْهُ ذِكْرًا ﴿۸۳﴾

﴾82﴿ Wa ammal jidaaru fakaana lighulaamaini yateemaini fil madeenati wa kaana tahtahoo kanzul lahumaa wa kaana aboohumaa saalihan fa araada Rabbuka any yablughaaa ashuddahumaa wa yastakhrijaa kanzahumaa rahmatam mir Rabbik; wa maa fa'altuhoo 'an amree; zaalika taaweelu maa lam tasti' 'alaihi sabra
﴾83﴿ Wa yas'aloonaka 'an Zil Qarnaini qul sa atloo 'alaikum minhu zikraa

﴾82﴿ And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the town, and beneath it was a treasure belonging to them. Their father had been a righteous man, so your Lord intended that they should reach maturity and extract their treasure as a mercy from your Lord. And I did not do it of my own accord. This is the interpretation of that which you could not have patience with
﴾83﴿ And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnayn. Say, 'I will recite to you something of his story as a reminder

[82] The conclusion is that although the people of this town were generally polytheists, this wall belonged to monotheists. The orphans were its owners, and beneath it lay a treasure. If the wall had collapsed, the treasure would have been exposed, and the oppressors of the town would have plundered it. Thus, protecting the wealth of orphans from oppressors is the duty of the Prophets (peace be upon them).
Even today, many oppressors unjustly consume the wealth of the poor and orphans. It is obligatory upon the scholars of the people of truth to rescue these orphans and the poor from the hands of such oppressors.
(Wa kāna abūhumā ṣāliḥan) (And their father was righteous)—this was the reason for the preservation of the orphans’ treasure. The implied question here is: “There are many orphans in the world, yet their wealth is not necessarily protected by divine command. Why were these orphans an exception?” The answer is that their father was a monotheistic believer, and thus, they were also considered believers by extension. For this reason, protecting their wealth was legally required.
Some innovators (bid‘atis) use this verse as proof for intercession (tawassul). The response is that this verse does not establish any form of polytheistic or innovative tawassul. Rather, it proves a legal principle—that protecting their wealth was a matter of divine decree. Calling this tawassul is ignorance. However, Allah the Exalted, due to the righteousness of one individual, grants mercy and blessings upon his children and followers.
(Wa mā faʿaltuhu ʿan amrī) (And I did not do it of my own accord)—this is the fundamental response to any doubts, as mentioned at the beginning of this section. That is, if someone questions how Khidr (peace be upon him) knew about the ship, the boy, and the future of the treasure, the answer is that he did not act out of personal choice or knowledge; rather, it was by divine command.
Note (1): In verse 78, tastaṭiʿ is mentioned with the letter tā, whereas here, in verse 82, tasṭiʿ is used without tā. The wisdom behind this is that before the explanations were given, it was burdensome for Musa (peace be upon him), and the addition of letters in Arabic often signifies additional difficulty. However, once the explanations were provided, the burden on Musa (peace be upon him) was lightened. This linguistic reduction reflects that relief.
Note (2): Regarding the ship, the phrase “aradtu” (I intended) is used; regarding the boy, “aradnā” (We intended) is used; and regarding the repair of the wall, “arāda rabbuka” (Your Lord intended) is used.
The wisdom behind this is that in the case of the ship, it was merely about creating a flaw. Khidr (peace be upon him) did not consider it appropriate to attribute such an action directly to Allah the Exalted, so he attributed it to himself alone.
In the case of building the wall, it was purely a good deed, so attributing it to Allah the Exalted was fitting.
As for the killing of the boy—while it resulted in good by replacing him with a better child, it also involved an act that appears evil (i.e., taking a life). Therefore, this was expressed with “We intended” to indicate a shared action, combining divine will and Khidr's role, thus balancing between good and difficult elements.
[83] From this verse up to verse 104 is the fourth section. It is a response to the doubts of those who infer from the story of Dhul-Qarnayn that he possessed extraordinary power and control.
The disbelievers and the Jews had asked this question because Dhul-Qarnayn’s miracles and feats were well known among them, and they considered these to be his own power.
The essence of the response is that Dhul-Qarnayn, in all of these matters, was dependent on Allah the Exalted.
For example, he was limited in his understanding of some languages—he didn’t know them, as will be mentioned in verse 93.
He also required the help of people, as seen in verse 95.
Then from verse 98 to 101, the reminder of the Hereafter is mentioned as a warning.
(Dhikran)—the account of Dhul-Qarnayn is referred to as dhikr (reminder), indicating that there is in it admonition and advice.
There are two opinions regarding the name of Dhul-Qarnayn:
The famous view among historians is that his name was Alexander (Iskandar), and he was Persian. He performed ṭawāf of the Ka‘bah alongside Ibrahim (peace be upon him), and Khidr (peace be upon him) was his vizier. That is why the story of Dhul-Qarnayn is mentioned after the account of Khidr.
The second opinion is that his name was Cyrus (Sā’irās), and this is what Abul Kalam Azad established based on historical evidence in his Tarjuman al-Qur’an commentary.
As for the Alexander who was the son of Philip of Macedonia (Greek and Roman), whose vizier was the disbelieving philosopher Aristotle—this is not the one meant here.
As for the title Dhul-Qarnayn (The Possessor of Two Horns), there are many interpretations. The strongest view is that he ruled over two great kingdoms of the world—Rome and Persia.